Linked by David Adams on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:25 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu It looks like a new "locally integrated menu" will make it into Unity, starting with version 5.6.0. There's basically no information about the new locally integrated menubar, except for two bug reports which link to some custom Unity, Compiz, Metacity and Light Themes branches so to see "LIM" in action, I've compiled all these branches and here's the result. The "locally integrated menubar" can be displayed on the panel (for maximized windows) as well as in the window decoration (unmaximized windows). But it's not displayed on both in the same time.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:44 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Watching everyone try and fail to redesign the user interface is facepalm. I'LL MOVE THIS BUTTON, THAT'S THE TICKET!

How about we (the human race) make user interfaces so easy to redesign that any artist can do it. Then maybe we'll see some real work done, rather than just programmers shuffling buttons around.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Luminair
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

As if developers never, ever, ever have a good sense of GUI design.

If you want someone to blame for bad GUI design... point at the head honchos of companies and organizations whose main role is advertising; those desperate for change *just to be "new" and different*, because they see dollar signs or for some reason think it'll be more "interesting" to people, not a truly better way of doing things. Those people who try to throw away everything and claim their extreme ideas of a GUI is the best thing ever. Mark Shuttleworth at Ubuntu... whoever's braindead idea was to ruin Windows... and the big GNOME guys.

Edited 2012-02-14 19:34 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I'm sorry for confusing you. I have edited out the part where I said developers never design good GUIs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Artist? You mean like guy's that made this?

http://en.wahooart.com/A55A04/w.nsf/Opra/BRUE-5ZKDHP

Yeah, that would be a much better, clearer design than anything a developer has done.

Or perhaps more fitting:

http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_i...

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

stupid person misses the point and makes fun of artists.

have you ever heard of spitballs? I'll explain real slow for you. sometimes spitballs stick to the wall when you throw them. sometimes they dont. right now nobody is throwing spitballs except an elite few like me. that's a http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphor

when developing computer interfaces becomes easy as making food or singing a song, then we'll see the real new designs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by tylerdurden on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Artists experts in human interfaces are not, and viceversa.

Edited 2012-02-14 21:14 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by ebasconp on Wed 15th Feb 2012 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Artists experts in human interfaces are not, and viceversa.


Actually I would remove the ", and viceversa." part.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by pooo on Wed 15th Feb 2012 09:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

I think the point here is that design, behavior, services and content should be decoupled from each other.

That way *anyone* could experiment aggressively with novel arrangements just by learning, for example, javascript, some markup, and css. Sound familiar? Developers *at best* are no better than other people at UX and design and there is a lot of reason to believe they are actually worse at it (disclosure: I am a developer)

Bagging on artists has to be the strangest response to the parent post I can imagine. WTF people?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Luminair
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 15th Feb 2012 16:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

How about we (the human race) make user interfaces so easy to redesign that any artist can do it. Then maybe we'll see some real work done, rather than just programmers shuffling buttons around.


Artists should never EVER be allowed to do the work of actual designers. Designers have to consider form AND function, while artists almost always choose form OVER function (see also: Apple).

You just have to look at the last few years of UI trends (especially on the web) to see what happens when artists try to design UI. The priorities are clearly: above all else, make it pretty, then make it functional... maybe, eventually, if there's some time left over.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Artists should never EVER be allowed to do the work of actual designers. Designers have to consider form AND function, while artists almost always choose form OVER function (see also: Apple).

I absolutely disagree. I think it's horrible to intentionally restrict someones ability to customize the gui in a way that suits their needs & wants. In terms of functionality, not everybody works the same so why would you assume they do and force a single layout on them? People by and large are the best judges when it comes to what works best _for them_...

You just have to look at the last few years of UI trends (especially on the web) to see what happens when artists try to design UI. The priorities are clearly: above all else, make it pretty, then make it functional... maybe, eventually, if there's some time left over.

So what. If a user wants a pretty gui, why shouldn't they 'be allowed' to create one?

I don't discourage anyone's creativity. If they want to take a stab at customizing their own gui, go for it. If they prefer to use premade stuff, go for it.

For a forum that seems so pro-Linux/giving-control-to-the-user, there sure is some irony on display regarding this subject. Then again someone else deciding they know what's best for you is nothing new and clearly nothing is exempt from that desire to be judge & jury.

I own a couple luxury vehicles. All of them have a very nice woodgrain package. This, of course, doesn't do anything for functionality, but it I like it and it makes my experience more enjoyable. I'm certainly glad it was my choice to customize that aspect of my vehicles, and not your decision that I shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Edited 2012-02-15 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 15th Feb 2012 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"Artists should never EVER be allowed to do the work of actual designers. Designers have to consider form AND function, while artists almost always choose form OVER function (see also: Apple).

I absolutely disagree. I think it's horrible to intentionally restrict someones ability to customize the gui in a way that suits their needs & wants. In terms of functionality, not everybody works the same so why would you assume they do and force a single layout on them? People by and large are the best judges when it comes to what works best _for them_...
"

...do you realize that there's actually a difference between customization by END USERS and the INITIAL design of the UI? Free hint for the reading comprehension-impaired: I'm talking about the latter, and instead you're talking about the former.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by ilovebeer on Thu 16th Feb 2012 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

[i]"Artists should never EVER be allowed to do the work of actual designers. Designers have to consider form AND function, while artists almost always choose form OVER function (see also: Apple)."

I absolutely disagree. I think it's horrible to intentionally restrict someones ability to customize the gui in a way that suits their needs & wants. In terms of functionality, not everybody works the same so why would you assume they do and force a single layout on them? People by and large are the best judges when it comes to what works best _for them_..."[/i]

...do you realize that there's actually a difference between customization by END USERS and the INITIAL design of the UI? Free hint for the reading comprehension-impaired: I'm talking about the latter, and instead you're talking about the former.

...do you realize that nothing you said directly stated or implied that you're referring to "INITIAL design of the UI"?

...do you realize that it wouldn't even matter because my points holds regardless?

...do you realize that you can create a completely transparent UI framework and technically not supply any "INITIAL design".

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 16th Feb 2012 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"...do you realize that there's actually a difference between customization by END USERS and the INITIAL design of the UI? Free hint for the reading comprehension-impaired: I'm talking about the latter, and instead you're talking about the former.

...do you realize that
"

"Monkey see, monkey do." Get your own material, kid.

nothing you said directly stated or implied that you're referring to "INITIAL design of the UI"?


Riiight, except for all of those times I wrote "design" instead of "customization". Oh, and I also wasn't referring to fashion design either - just in case you needed that spelled out for you too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Luminair
by ilovebeer on Thu 16th Feb 2012 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Luminair"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"Monkey see, monkey do." Get your own material, kid.


Riiight, except for all of those times I wrote "design" instead of "customization". Oh, and I also wasn't referring to fashion design either - just in case you needed that spelled out for you too.


You're displaying behavior common for someone who is embarrassed and/or intimidated. Considering the idiocy of your posts, this comes as no surprise.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Luminair
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 16th Feb 2012 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Luminair"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

""Monkey see, monkey do." Get your own material, kid.


Riiight, except for all of those times I wrote "design" instead of "customization". Oh, and I also wasn't referring to fashion design either - just in case you needed that spelled out for you too.


You're displaying behavior common for someone who is embarrassed and/or intimidated.
"

And what behavior would that be? Digging myself into a hole by flailing around to avoid admitting that I missed an obvious point, because I was too eager to spew a trite little "how dare you stifle my creativity" rant? Oh, no, wait - sorry, that's you I'm thinking of.

Considering the idiocy of your posts, this comes as no surprise.


Awwww looks like I hurt his poor widdle feewings. Waaaah, waaaah, someone get the baby his bottle!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by orestes
by orestes on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:45 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Before we get any kneejerk reactions, remember that this doesn't even officially exist yet other than some as yet unexplained development patches. Hold off on the pitchforks till something intelligible is said as to what the plans are.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by orestes
by skeezix on Tue 14th Feb 2012 18:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by orestes"
skeezix Member since:
2006-02-06

Pitchforks? Heck, how about laurel wreaths? This idea -- returning to menubars that are coupled to the window -- is such a relief after struggling through the confusing paradigm of global menubars coupled with un-maximised windows. And I really like the fact that you still save space. One extra click, sure, but that's not a huge problem -- we're already discovering that it's not too painful in Chrome and Firefox (mind you, their menu structures are designed with that pattern in mind, and tend to be rather shallow as a consequence).

Edited 2012-02-14 18:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by orestes
by Delgarde on Tue 14th Feb 2012 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by orestes"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

(mind you, their menu structures are designed with that pattern in mind, and tend to be rather shallow as a consequence).


That's a very significant "mind you".

It's one thing designing an application's UI in such a way that it doesn't need menus, or has very simple ones. It's very different to just automatically restructure the menus of applications not designed that way...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by aaronb
by aaronb on Tue 14th Feb 2012 18:01 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I prefer the "locally integrated menubar" to how Unity currently is in Ubuntu 11.10. Why not just have the menu options at the top of each application and when the application is maximized it becomes part of the panel.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by aaronb
by swinkels.pieter on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by aaronb"
swinkels.pieter Member since:
2009-05-13

I definitely agree with the above statement. When the application is maximized, you save screen real estate when its menu is part of the panel. When the application is not maximized, you do not have to guess anymore to which application the menu in the panel belongs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by aaronb
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Feb 2012 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by aaronb"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

When the application is maximized, you save screen real estate when its menu is part of the panel.


At and above 1920x1200 I couldn't care less about saving a menu line's worth of pixels. But I can care about loonies who make menu&panel merging mandatory. Some other DEs had this option for long years, and it was good so [i.e. to have it as an option]. I'm always surprised how many "users" fall in line - from time to time again - behind the one window/one app at a time fullscreen crap. Trash all menus, all options, all bars and scrolls, statuses and popup bubbles while you're at it. And by all means the close, minimize and alttabs too, who needs that crap anymore.

Reply Score: 4

Coming Soon
by fretinator on Tue 14th Feb 2012 18:13 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Coming in Ubuntu 13.37:

Users no longer interact with their computing device. Instead, the device knows what they want to do and does it for them. Hello, Dave.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Coming Soon
by fran on Tue 14th Feb 2012 22:00 UTC in reply to "Coming Soon"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Voice activated menu system
"Open Documents"
"Run Gimp"

Does not seem bad at all

Reply Score: 3

Bleh...
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 14th Feb 2012 20:07 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Drop-down menus always suck... I hated them at first sight, and in programs that have switched to them by default (Firefox, Opera), it's the first thing I switch: back to the traditional menu/toolbar style. Of the decent features introduced in, what was it, Windows 7 (or was it Vista? Can't remember... but if Vista, well, I don't think there were any decent features...), that's THE one I did not want everyone to copy. Ubuntu needs to quit listening to their bigshot marketing guys. They don't know shit about user interface design, and "different" is not always better, nor is it a good way to keep people coming back for your product.

Especially if its interface is filled with sucky design elements to begin with. "Different" and "unique" can spell disaster if not done correctly... most desktop environment developers don't seem to get that these days, with their urges to change everything, in an attempt to either please their shareholders or get some warm, fuzzy feeling that they're making a difference in the world by shaking up their GUI needlessly, in an attempt to get more people to go "huh?" and try *their* desktop out of pure curiosity instead of their competition's.

Sorry guys, but the fun won't last long (if at all) before people switch right back to something that, you know, actually lets them get their work done. And comfortably.

Edited 2012-02-14 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bleh...
by fran on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:58 UTC in reply to "Bleh..."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

have to disagree with you there
Nothing wrong with drop down menues

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Bleh...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 15th Feb 2012 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Bleh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Meh... I would say nothing is wrong with the "ribbon" interface, but I could write an essay on why those damn nested menus suck. But if you like them, hey--have at it. Use them. Enjoy them, however the hell that's possible. It's bad enough they are increasingly becoming the default--as long as they don't become permanent and unchangeable, I guess I can't say too much.

BUT... will Ubuntu allow changing this? Moving the Close/Maximize/Minimize buttons back to the right was a hit-or-miss change; some people were able to do it with little trouble, others had to change the theme entirely for it to work, and still others had to (gasp) f*** around in gconf-editor. This is not GNOME, it's Ubuntu we're talking about, so I don't know how hell-bent they will be at making the interface as hard to change as possible, but I just have a feeling that they've got the same basic mentality as the GNOME guys and it won't be fun.

I don't know what's worse--drop-down menus or hidden menus. I hate them both, but at least with a hidden menu you can hit Alt and have the whole thing pop up, exactly as you expect it. Not so with the Drop-down menus.

Edited 2012-02-15 05:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Saladar
by Saladar on Tue 14th Feb 2012 20:50 UTC
Saladar
Member since:
2011-10-25

I love the menubars at the top of the screen. Are those called "global" menubars? I don't know the terminology. Of couse I'm a Mac guy so I love the way Mac OS X does it. That's also the reason I Ubuntu on some of my machines. Go go Mac style menubars!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Saladar
by krtekz on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by Saladar"
krtekz Member since:
2007-05-31

In OSX, when you have more than one monitor, then the menu bar stays in the main monitor and the window could be in another monitor, far from the menu. It looks silly.

Edited 2012-02-14 21:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Saladar
by Saladar on Tue 14th Feb 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Saladar"
Saladar Member since:
2011-10-25

Ahh, I see. That is silly. I only run one monitor so I did not know that. I was wondering how that worked, thanks for the info.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Saladar
by Moochman on Fri 17th Feb 2012 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Saladar"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

It is very silly, but luckily there's this (SecondBar):

http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79

Reply Score: 2

Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by benali72 on Tue 14th Feb 2012 23:15 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

It appears as if Canoncial is desperating casting about for a new GUI. Why?

I fear for the Linux community if Ubuntu continues to be the "go to" system for new users. These folks haven't shown the stability of judgement required in that role.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by ricegf on Wed 15th Feb 2012 03:34 UTC in reply to "Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Touch. Voice. Gestures.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Touch. Voice. Gestures.

Well, I am not impressed.

Are you really advocating using solely these inputs to do anything a bit advanced on the content creation side ? I mean, finger painting and shouting repeatedly at the computer until it gets what you mean is cute and all, but I still can't see how it can efficiently replace keyboards, mice, and styluses at the tasks where those are good for.

A future proof user interface should see beyond the latest gimmicks in the realm of input devices.

Edited 2012-02-15 06:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by ricegf on Wed 15th Feb 2012 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I answered a question, Neolander, I didn't advocate anything.

But since you asked my opinion ;-), I don't yet see a particular advantage to using the exact same interface on desktops and touch devices, as Canonical and Microsoft seem to be promoting. And I'm not at all sold on incompatible desktops and tablets, as Apple and Google are promoting.

Rather, I'd like to see different UIs on different device types, but with the same underlying OS and compatible toolkits to make writing apps across the board much less work. This was the MeeGo model, I think it's the KDE model (though I'm pretty new to their touch interface), and Microsoft may be moving that way with Window [Phone] 8.

I use an iPad, and it's sometimes elegant, but definitely under-powered for "real" work. I love Maemo and its ability to use *real* applications rather than limited iPad-like apps, even though my beloved N900 is getting pretty dated. Unity works pretty well on tablets (with a little tweaking), but I'm not sold on it for desktops - though I'm giving it a fair shot right now on my primary workstation at home (with some occasional Cinnamon Mint tossed in for flavor, while using Suse with Gnome 2, Red Hat with KDE 4, and Win 7 on workstations at my day job).

So I'm open to a one-size-fits-all UI approach, but skeptical that I'll find one that really works well for me on all device types.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree that one UI per device could be a solution, if one-size-fits-all proves to be impossible to implement.

What I don't understand is when UI toolkits seem to become incompatible with certain input devices on purpose.

See the paragraph here as an example : https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_8_Integration#Hardware_Configuratio...

It is said that Wacom tablets are not compatible with Windows 8's Metro interface because their drivers do not generate touch events. Seriously, how does this make any sense ? How much would it cost Microsoft to just support a generic "pointer" abstraction instead of forcing drivers to mimick touch when they actually abstract something totally unrelated ?

I can understand having one UI per device family, but not one toolkit per device.

PS : Sorry if my posting style is a bit aggressive today. I've been dealing with some ugly flu/cold/whatever that prevents me to breathe and sleep properly for a few days now, and it starts to show.

Edited 2012-02-15 13:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by cyrilleberger on Wed 15th Feb 2012 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

See the paragraph here as an example : https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_8_Integration#Hardware_Configuratio...

It is said that Wacom tablets are not compatible with Windows 8's Metro interface because their drivers do not generate touch events. Seriously, how does this make any sense ?

No, it is said "Wacom Bamboo tablet:
Current generation of drivers do not generate native touch events"

Bamboo tablet are normal pen tablet that also support multitouch. The most likely explanation is that if you use (currently) a bamboo tablet with Metro, it will be treated as a mouse rather than as a touch device.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by Sauron on Wed 15th Feb 2012 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

I mean, finger painting and shouting repeatedly at the computer until it gets what you mean is cute and all

Try installing and using Vista or Gnome 3 and before long
you'll be shouting at the damn thing even without the use of a microphone! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by Neolander on Thu 16th Feb 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I have had the displeasure of dealing with Vista on my grandmother's laptop, and I deal with the wondrous performance of its successor each time I play a game on mine, so I feel your pain... Works relatively fine once you put it on a recent desktop gaming machine though.

Gnome 3 is different, because contrary to Windows I'm never forced to use it. After a short experience with it in Fedora 15, I just decided that I didn't like it and would give Xfce a try and that was it. Mint's tweaks make it more bearable, too, so I may switch back someday, once I'm tired of Xfce's endless stream of glitches...

Edited 2012-02-16 09:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

OTOH - I, and few others I know, don't see Vista (service packed Vista at least) as that different from Win7 ...maybe there's something weird / "wrong" with your grandmother's laptop (or maybe just an occurrence of how the PCs don't seem to be strictly deterministic ;p )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Feb 2012 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Touch. Voice. Gestures.


Well, if one goes for that, they should state it upfront, so desktop people don't complain unnecessarily, and don't use crap that isn't intended for them. Just sayin'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?
by ricegf on Thu 16th Feb 2012 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quo Vadis, Canonical?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

That would be transparent and all, and a Very Good Idea IMHO.

The only reason I can imagine off-hand for not publicly showing a clear road map would be to avoid giving too much competitive warning to certain corporations with a reputation for poaching technology.

(Unity debuted on June 9, 2010, while Metro on Windows should launch sometime in 2012 according to Mr. Ballmer's infamous slip of the tongue - somewhat after the Long Term Support version of Unity ships this April.)

Reply Score: 2

Just a thought
by bosco_bearbank on Tue 14th Feb 2012 23:43 UTC
bosco_bearbank
Member since:
2005-10-12

I like the fact that the GNOME and Unity designers are trying out new ideas. However, I don't like any of the ideas I've seen presented, so I'll stick with LXDE.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Just a thought
by Lennie on Wed 15th Feb 2012 22:02 UTC in reply to "Just a thought"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What I think the problem is, is that the users seem to be the ginneapigs.

Reply Score: 2

Desperation...
by cmost on Wed 15th Feb 2012 00:31 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Seems like Canonical is getting desperate. I guess they should have stuck with what worked instead of going waaaaaaay out on that limb alone.

Reply Score: 1

Is there some kind of contest
by dvhh on Wed 15th Feb 2012 03:00 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

To create the most cryptic UI ?

Or are they trying to create The ultimate UI that would unite keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, gesture, etc (meaning that you would have to use all of them at the same time ....).

Reply Score: 2

Another step backwards...
by einr on Wed 15th Feb 2012 10:31 UTC
einr
Member since:
2012-02-15

This is awful. First they throw away local menu bars, which are and were always a Good Idea (but Apple doesn't have them so let's do what they do first and ask questions later) then they break stuff even more by bringing them back, except remarkably more terrible (no key accelerators or menu titles visible at a glance, extra mouse click on an obscure-looking icon required to even enter the menu of menus...)

Why? Does anyone really need to save ~12px of vertical space when almost everyone has 900+ vertical pixels of resolution?

Is it so bad that stuff's looked the same since 1995 that we have to go around destroying functional, effective paradigms and interfaces just to be different and pretend we're innovating?

No one ever asked for this. People put up with Apple's and Microsoft's "let's-break-our-UI-again" crap because they more or less have to, but no one has to use Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 6

It makes the traditional menu less usable
by Temcat on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:39 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

Excellent, now you have to make one more click to get to the desired command.

Reply Score: 2